citation_id,filing_id,case_name,citation,court,year,proposition,cited_by
1,4,Frankoff v. Norman,"448 S.W.3d 75, 87 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.)",Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.],2014,"If the defendant's liability for the alleged underlying tort is foreclosed as a matter of law, there is no claim for conspiracy",Montague
2,6,Reynolds v. State,"2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 11059, *1-2",Texas Court of Appeals,2017,Barratry has been considered a crime in Texas since 1876; Texas outlawed having a runner solicit clients on behalf of a lawyer as far back as 1917,Kassab
3,6,Neese v. Lyon,"479 S.W.3d 368, 376-77 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2015, no pet.)",Tex. App.—Dallas,2015,The ordinary meaning of barratry is vexatious incitement to litigation especially by soliciting potential legal clients; discusses legislative history of § 82.065 and § 82.0651,Kassab
4,7,"Adams v. Starside Custom Builders, LLC",547 S.W.3d 890,Texas Supreme Court,2018,TCPA analysis first step requires movant to demonstrate by preponderance of evidence that the statute applies; the statute 'casts a wide net',Kassab
5,7,ExxonMobil Pipeline Co. v. Coleman,512 S.W.3d 895,Texas Supreme Court,2017,TCPA includes expedited manner of dismissing claims brought to intimidate or silence defendant's First Amendment rights,Kassab
6,7,Bedford v. Spassoff,520 S.W.3d 901,Texas Supreme Court,2017,Trial court must consider pleadings and affidavits when determining TCPA applicability,Kassab
7,7,Deaver v. Desai,483 S.W.3d 668,Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.],2015,Statements relating to legal services offered by attorney in the marketplace address matters of public concern under TCPA,Kassab
8,7,Lippincott v. Whisenhunt,462 S.W.3d 507,Texas Supreme Court,2015,TCPA 'communication' definition encompasses both public and private communications,Kassab
9,7,Avila v. Larrea,394 S.W.3d 646,Tex. App.—Dallas,2012,Attorney's legal services constitute a 'service in the marketplace' and thus a matter of public concern,Kassab
10,7,Watson v. Hardman,497 S.W.3d 601,Tex. App.—Dallas,2016,No requirement that the subject matter of the proceeding must concern public interest for right to petition protection to apply,Kassab
11,7,Johnson-Todd v. Morgan,480 S.W.3d 605,Tex. App.—Beaumont,2015,TCPA remedies extend to attorneys acting as agents for their clients when communicating during judicial proceedings,Kassab
12,7,Beving v. Beadles,2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 8540,Tex. App.—Fort Worth,2018,Deposition and affidavit testimony in underlying lawsuit constitutes exercise of the right to petition,Kassab
13,7,"Elite Auto Body LLC v. Autocraft Bodywerks, Inc.",520 S.W.3d 191,Tex. App.—Austin,2017,"Right of association protects sharing of confidential information between individuals joining together to pursue common interests, even when alleged to be wrongful",Kassab
14,7,James v. Calkins,446 S.W.3d 135,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2014,"Fraud claims against attorney and client arising out of prior litigation were protected as exercise of rights to speak, associate, and petition",Kassab
15,7,Collins v. Collins,2018 WL 1320841,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2018,Conversion and fraud claims based on communications in judicial proceedings (divorce) were subject to TCPA dismissal; trial court abused discretion by denying TCPA motion,Kassab
16,7,"Reeves v. Harbor Am. Cent., Inc.",552 S.W.3d 389,Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.],2018,Conversion and trade secret claims triggered TCPA analysis; trial court could not summarily conclude TCPA does not apply without conducting full analysis,Kassab
17,7,"FCLT Loans, L.P. v. Estate of Bracher",93 S.W.3d 469,Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.],2002,"To bring a conversion claim, the aggrieved party must have ownership, possession, or the right to immediate possession of the property",Kassab
18,7,Trammel Crow Co. No. 60 v. Harkinson,944 S.W.2d 631,Texas Supreme Court,1997,"To prevail on civil conspiracy, plaintiff must show defendant was liable for an underlying tort",Kassab
19,7,"Cantey Hanger, LLP v. Byrd",467 S.W.3d 477,Texas Supreme Court,2015,Attorneys are immune from civil liability to non-clients for actions taken in connection with representing a client in litigation; mere labeling of conduct as 'fraudulent' does not remove it from scope of representation,Kassab
20,7,Youngkin v. Hines,546 S.W.3d 675,Texas Supreme Court,2018,Attorney immunity inquiry focuses on the kind of conduct at issue rather than the alleged wrongfulness of said conduct,Kassab
21,7,"Alpert v. Crain, Caton & James, P.C.",178 S.W.3d 398,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2005,Conspiracy to defraud claim was not actionable where complained-of actions involved filing of lawsuits to facilitate rendition of legal services,Kassab
22,7,"Highland Capital Mgmt., LP v. Looper Reed & McGraw, P.C.",2016 WL 164528,Tex. App.—Dallas,2016,Claims that a lawyer obtained stolen property and threatened disclosure were dismissed on attorney immunity because conduct fell 'squarely within the scope of representation' in the lawsuit; dismissal via Rule 91a,Kassab
23,7,Exxon Corp. v. Emerald Oil & Gas Co.,348 S.W.3d 194,Texas Supreme Court,2011,"Statute of limitations begins to run when party has actual knowledge of wrongful injury, even without knowing specific cause, responsible party, or full extent",Kassab
24,7,Burns v. Rochon,190 S.W.3d 263,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2006,Two-year statute of limitations for conversion runs from date property is allegedly taken,Kassab
25,7,Mayes v. Stewart,316 S.W.3d 715,Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.],2010,Two-year statute of limitations applies to civil conspiracy claims,Kassab
26,7,Barr v. Resolution Tr. Corp.,837 S.W.2d 627,Texas Supreme Court,1992,Res judicata prevents relitigation of claims that have been finally adjudicated and related matters that should have been litigated in the prior suit,Kassab
27,7,Lemon v. Spann,633 S.W.2d 568,Tex. App.—Texarkana,1982,Judgment in first suit precludes second action by parties and privies on matters actually litigated and causes of action arising from the same subject matter,Kassab
28,7,Ventling v. Johnson,466 S.W.3d 143,Texas Supreme Court,2015,"If trial attorney's fees are mandatory under a statute, then appellate attorney's fees are also mandatory when proof of reasonable fees is presented",Kassab
29,7,Urquhart v. Calkins,2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 5145,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2018,"Under the TCPA, trial court does not have discretion to disallow conditional appellate attorney's fees when proof of reasonable fees is presented",Kassab
30,9,In re Lipsky,460 S.W.3d 579,Texas Supreme Court,2015,"TCPA is intended to dismiss lawsuits designed to chill First Amendment rights, not to dismiss meritorious lawsuits; prima facie case requires 'minimum quantum of evidence' supporting rational inference allegation is true; pleading showing factual basis for claim is sufficient to resist TCPA motion",Pohl
31,9,"Wayne Dolcefino & Dolcefino Communications, LLC v. Cypress Creek EMS",540 S.W.3d 194,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2017,Courts use a two-step procedure for TCPA dismissal; must view evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant; must show connection between claims and alleged protected conduct,Pohl
32,9,ExxonMobil Pipeline Co. v. Coleman,512 S.W.3d 895,Texas Supreme Court,2017,Legislature included expedited manner for dismissing claims brought to intimidate or silence defendants' First Amendment rights,Pohl
33,9,"LFMC Enterprises, LLC v. Baker",546 S.W.3d 893,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2018,"Movant bears burden of demonstrating TCPA applicability by preponderance of evidence; rights being protected must be the party's own rights, not a third party's; defendant must demonstrate specific connection between claim and protected right",Pohl
34,9,Hersh v. Tatum,526 S.W.3d 462,Texas Supreme Court,2017,"Basis of a legal action is determined by the plaintiff's allegations, not the defendant's admissions or denials; petition is the 'best and all-sufficient evidence of the nature of the action'",Pohl
35,9,Sloat v. Rathbun,513 S.W.3d 500,Tex. App.—Austin,2015,Courts should not blindly accept defendants' attempts to characterize claims as implicating protected expression; should favor conclusion that claims are not predicated on protected expression; defendant's activities not factually predicate for claims are not pertinent to the inquiry,Pohl
36,9,Castleman v. Internet Money Ltd.,546 S.W.3d 684,Texas Supreme Court,2018,"Four-part test for commercial speech exception: (1) defendant primarily engaged in selling/leasing goods or services, (2) conduct in defendant's capacity as seller, (3) arose out of commercial transaction involving defendant's services, (4) intended audience was actual or potential customers",Pohl
37,9,"Miller Weisbrod, L.L.P. v. Llamas-Soforo",511 S.W.3d 181,Tex. App.—El Paso,2014,Attorney advertising falls within the commercial exception to the TCPA,Pohl
38,9,"NCDR, L.L.C. v. Mauze v. Bagby, P.L.L.C.",745 F.3d 742,"U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit",2014,"Where a lawyer is primarily engaged in selling legal services and the speech arises from the sale of services to actual/potential clients, the solicitation falls outside TCPA protections",Pohl
39,9,"Hicks v. Group & Pension Administrators, Inc.",473 S.W.3d 518,Tex. App.—Corpus Christi,2015,Detailed pleading showing factual basis for claims is sufficient to set forth prima facie case under the TCPA,Pohl
40,9,In re E.I DuPont de Nemours & Co.,136 S.W.3d 218,Texas Supreme Court,2004,Prima facie case requires 'minimum quantum of evidence necessary to support a rational inference that the allegation of fact is true',Pohl
41,9,Stockyards Nat. Bank v. Maples,95 S.W.2d 1300,Tex. Comm'n App.,1936,The petition is the 'best and all-sufficient evidence of the nature of the action',Pohl
42,9,"Cantey Hanger, LLP v. Byrd",467 S.W.3d 477,Texas Supreme Court,2015,Attorney immunity protects actions taken while representing a client in litigation; Pohl argues Kassab had no clients at time of wrongful conduct,Pohl
43,9,Mayes v. Stewart,316 S.W.3d 715,Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.],2010,"Two-year limitations for conspiracy; Pohl argues limitations has not run because Favre-Kassab Agreement was November 10, 2016",Pohl
44,9,Collins v. Collins,2018 WL 1320841,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2018,"Distinguished — that case involved claims factually predicated on communications in a judicial proceeding (divorce affidavit), unlike Pohl's claims for conversion of stolen property",Pohl
45,9,"Reeves v. Harbor Am. Cent., Inc.",552 S.W.3d 389,Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.],2018,Distinguished — that case simply held the trial court must conduct a full TCPA analysis rather than summarily concluding TCPA does not apply; Pohl does not deny TCPA analysis is required,Pohl
46,10,Humphreys v. Caldwell,888 S.W.2d 469,Texas Supreme Court,1994,An affidavit must be based on the affiant's personal knowledge and must state that the facts in it are true,Kassab
47,10,Radio Station KSCS v. Jennings,750 S.W.2d 760,Texas Supreme Court,1988,Affidavit must show witness has personal knowledge under Tex. R. Evid. 602,Kassab
48,10,Burke v. Satterfield,525 S.W.2d 950,Texas Supreme Court,1975,"An affidavit must contain direct and unequivocal statements that, if false, would be grounds for perjury",Kassab
49,10,Hall v. Stephenson,919 S.W.2d 454,Tex. App.—Fort Worth,1996,Affidavit must contain statements that would be grounds for perjury if false,Kassab
50,10,Freeman v. American Motorists Ins.,53 S.W.3d 710,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2001,Six elements required to introduce a business record through a witness under Tex. R. Evid. 803(6),Kassab
51,10,"Ryland Group, Inc. v. Hood",924 S.W.2d 120,Texas Supreme Court,1996,Conclusory affidavits do not raise fact issues and are incompetent evidence as a matter of law,Kassab
52,10,Stephens v. Precision Drilling Oilfield Servs. Corp.,2013 WL 1928797,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2013,Conclusory affidavits are incompetent evidence as a matter of law,Kassab
53,10,Dolcefino v. Randolph,19 S.W.3d 906,Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.],2000,A conclusory statement is one that does not provide the underlying facts to support the conclusion,Kassab
54,10,E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Shell Oil Co.,259 S.W.3d 800,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2007,An affidavit is conclusory when it expresses a factual inference without stating the underlying facts on which the inference is based,Kassab
55,10,"Game Sys. v. Forbes Hutton Leasing, Inc.",2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 4098,Tex. App.—Fort Worth,2011,Statement that software 'constitutes a trade secret' was conclusory and not proper evidence,Kassab
56,10,McCollum v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon Tr. Co.,481 S.W.3d 352,Tex. App.—El Paso,2015,Conclusory statements that conduct is 'allegedly wrongful' are insufficient to raise a fact issue,Kassab
57,10,"Celtic Props., L.C. v. Cleveland Reg'l Med. Ctr., L.P.",2015 WL 4600661,Tex. App.—Beaumont,2015,Statement that property was 'damaged' as a result of defendant's conduct was insufficient as a matter of law,Kassab
58,10,"Chapa v. Stonehaven Dev., Inc.",2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 10159,Tex. App.—Corpus Christi,2013,Statement 'we lost the profits we would have made' is conclusory because it provides no underlying facts to support the conclusion,Kassab
59,10,"Fraud-Tech, Inc. v. Choicepoint, Inc.",2006 WL 1030189,Tex. App.—Fort Worth,2006,Affidavit testimony that appellants were damaged because of alleged conversion was conclusory when affiant did not supply facts underlying its conclusions,Kassab
60,10,"Plas-Tex, Inc. v. Jones",2000 Tex. App. LEXIS 3188,Tex. App.—Austin,2000,Conclusory statements regarding value of unidentified trade secrets were insufficient to support claim of damages,Kassab
61,10,Methodist Hosp. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.,329 S.W.3d 510,Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.],2009,"Bare assertion that opposing party's conduct was the 'causal connection' of damages was conclusory, 'substantively defective,' and no more than affiant's subjective opinion",Kassab
62,10,"In Re Kenneth George (consolidated with In Re Epic Holdings, Inc.)",28 S.W.3d 511,Texas Supreme Court,2000,"The attorney is the agent of the client, and the work product generated by the attorney in representing the client belongs to the client",Kassab
63,10,Hebisen v. State,615 S.W.2d 866,Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],1981,Contents of a client's file must be turned over to the client promptly upon request,Kassab
64,10,"Resolution Trust Corp. v. H--, P.C.",128 FRD 647,N.D. Tex.,1989,"Attorney may retain a copy of the file at attorney's expense, but the original file belongs to the client",Kassab
65,10,Nolan v. Foreman,665 F.2d 738,"U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit",1982,Client file belongs to the client; rehearing denied at 671 F.2d 1380,Kassab
66,10,Smith v. State,490 S.W.2d 902,Tex. Civ. App.—Corpus Christi,1972,Failure to turn over client files is willful and malicious and constitutes dishonorable conduct; retention only permitted to secure a debt if not prejudicial to client,Kassab
67,10,Castleman v. Internet Money Ltd.,546 S.W.3d 684,Texas Supreme Court,2018,Four-part test for TCPA commercial speech exception; party asserting exemption bears burden of proving applicability; exception requires conduct arise out of sale of goods/services in a commercial transaction,Kassab
68,10,Schimmel v. McGregor,438 S.W.3d 847,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2014,The party asserting the commercial speech exemption bears the burden of proving its applicability,Kassab
69,15,In re Roser,2016 WL 2605686,Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.],2016,Mandatory stay under § 51.014(b) applies to all trial court proceedings including discovery,Pohl
70,15,In re Texas Educ. Agency,441 S.W.3d 747,Tex. App.—Austin,2014,Conducting hearings during mandatory stay was abuse of discretion violating § 51.014(b),Pohl
71,15,"In re Bliss & Glennon, Inc.",2014 WL 50831,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2014,Mandamus relief granted when trial court took action during mandatory stay under § 51.014(b),Pohl
72,15,Roccaforte v. Jefferson County,341 S.W.3d 919,Texas Supreme Court,2011,"Trial court actions taken in violation of § 51.014(b) stay are voidable, not void",Pohl
73,15,Bacharach v. Garcia,485 S.W.3d 600,Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.],2016,TCPA 60-day filing period begins from service of original petition and is not reset by amended petitions,Pohl
74,15,Wheeler v. Green,157 S.W.3d 439,Texas Supreme Court,2005,Lawyer's failure to meet a deadline is an elementary mistake that could warrant conclusion of intent or conscious indifference,Pohl
75,15,"LFMC Enterprises, LLC v. Baker",546 S.W.3d 893,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2018,Defendants bear burden of demonstrating TCPA applicability by preponderance of evidence,Pohl
76,15,In re Lipsky,460 S.W.3d 579,Texas Supreme Court,2015,"TCPA is intended to dismiss lawsuits designed to chill First Amendment rights, not dismiss meritorious lawsuits; defines prima facie case standard; 'clear' means unambiguous, sure, free from doubt; 'specific' means explicit or relating to a particular named thing",Pohl
77,15,"Wayne Dolcefino & Dolcefino Communications, LLC v. Cypress Creek EMS",540 S.W.3d 194,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2017,Two-step TCPA procedure; movant must establish connection between claims and protected conduct; evidence viewed in light most favorable to nonmovant,Pohl
78,15,ExxonMobil Pipeline Co. v. Coleman,512 S.W.3d 895,Texas Supreme Court,2017,Two-step TCPA procedure for expediting dismissal of claims chilling First Amendment rights,Pohl
79,15,Hersh v. Tatum,526 S.W.3d 462,Texas Supreme Court,2017,"Basis of legal action determined by plaintiff's allegations, not defendant's characterizations; petition is the best and all-sufficient evidence of the nature of the action",Pohl
80,15,Sloat v. Rathbun,513 S.W.3d 500,Tex. App.—Austin,2015,Courts should not blindly accept defendant's recharacterization of claims; should favor conclusion claims are not predicated on protected expression; activities not factual predicate for claims are not pertinent,Pohl
81,15,Castleman v. Internet Money Ltd.,546 S.W.3d 684,Texas Supreme Court,2018,Four-part test for TCPA commercial speech exception under § 27.010(b); discusses how the 'capacity' of the person is relevant to whether they were primarily engaged in selling goods or services,Pohl
82,15,In re E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,136 S.W.3d 218,Texas Supreme Court,2004,Prima facie case is minimum quantum of evidence to support rational inference that allegation of fact is true,Pohl
83,15,"S & S Emergency Training Sols., Inc. v. Elliott",2018 WL 6711322,Texas Supreme Court,2018,Defining 'clear and specific' evidence requirement under TCPA,Pohl
84,15,"Hicks v. Group & Pension Administrators, Inc.",473 S.W.3d 518,Tex. App.—Corpus Christi,2015,Detailed pleading allegations sufficient to establish prima facie case under TCPA,Pohl
85,15,"Prime Products, Inc. v. S.S.I. Plastics, Inc.",97 S.W.3d 631,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2002,Elements of a breach of contract claim,Pohl
86,15,Stockyards Nat. Bank v. Maples,95 S.W.2d 1300,Tex. Comm'n App.,1936,Petition is the best and all-sufficient evidence of the nature of the action,Pohl
87,15,Sullivan v. Abraham,488 S.W.3d 294,Texas Supreme Court,2016,"Movant bears burden of proof on attorney's fees including documentation of services, hourly rates, and time required",Pohl
88,15,Stine v. Stewart,80 S.W.3d 586,Texas Supreme Court,2002,Four-year statute of limitations for breach of contract,Pohl
89,15,Mayes v. Stewart,316 S.W.3d 715,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2006,Limitations periods for civil conspiracy claims follow the underlying torts,Pohl
90,16,Walker v. Williamson,2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61185,S.D. Miss.,2016,"Background of the Federal Court Case involving Pohl, Precision, Walker, and Ladner",Kassab
91,16,Walker v. Williamson,2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59031,S.D. Miss.,2017,Runners contracted with Pohl to provide marketing services for automobile rollover claims,Kassab
92,16,Walker v. Williamson,2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76488,S.D. Miss.,2016,Runners procured thousands of BP claims and motor vehicle cases but Pohl did not pay agreed share,Kassab
93,16,Kassab v. Pohl,612 S.W.3d 571,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2020,First Court of Appeals opinion characterizing Pohl's claims and Kassab's conduct; Runners paid over $5 million in 'barratry pass-through money'; Kassab's conduct arose from commercial transaction involving legal services; intended audience were potential clients with barratry claims,Kassab
94,16,Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda,133 S.W.3d 217,Texas Supreme Court,2004,Purpose of summary judgment is to eliminate patently unmeritorious claims,Kassab
95,16,"Lujan v. Navistar, Inc.",555 S.W.3d 79,Texas Supreme Court,2018,Traditional summary judgment standard — no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law,Kassab
96,16,Maldonado v. Maldonado,556 S.W.3d 407,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2018,Burden shifts to nonmovant to raise genuine issue of material fact,Kassab
97,16,Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway,135 S.W.3d 598,Texas Supreme Court,2004,Genuine issue of material fact exists if more than a scintilla of evidence is produced,Kassab
98,16,Schlumberger Tech. Corp. v. Pasko,544 S.W.3d 830,Texas Supreme Court,2018,Defendant moving for summary judgment on limitations must conclusively establish the defense elements; cause of action accrues when tortious act was committed or facts authorize seeking judicial remedy,Kassab
99,16,KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison Cnty. Hous. Fin. Corp.,988 S.W.2d 746,Texas Supreme Court,1999,Defendant must conclusively prove when cause of action accrued and negate discovery rule,Kassab
100,16,"United Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. First St. Hosp. LP",570 S.W.3d 323,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2018,"Cause of action accrues when tortious act was committed and caused injury, or facts come into existence authorizing judicial remedy",Kassab